Captain’s Day Disqualification

[CountLippe]

I would imagine it rather depends on whether the group stopping includes the leader and/or a high handicapper and whether the clubhouse witnesses includes the person in second place and/or members of the captain's/committee clique.
Golf club basics innit.

Ha

 

[rulie]

I would imagine it rather depends on whether the group stopping includes the leader and/or a high handicapper and whether the clubhouse witnesses includes the person in second place and/or members of the captain's/committee clique.
Golf club basics innit.

Very cynical!!

 

[bobmac]

I would imagine it rather depends on whether the group stopping includes the leader and/or a high handicapper and whether the clubhouse witnesses includes the person in second place and/or members of the captain's/committee clique.
Golf club basics innit.

How can the group stop if it hasn't started?
In my opinion, the group were disqualified because they missed their tee time by 15 minutes.

 

[backwoodsman]

How can the group stop if it hasn't started?
In my opinion, the group were disqualified because they missed their tee time by 15 minutes.

Bob, if I've understood the thread correctly, the disqualified group were part way round when they stopped to shelter? (As opposed to that they hadn't started?)

 

[bobmac]

Bob, if I've understood the thread correctly, the disqualified group were part way round when they stopped to shelter? (As opposed to that they hadn't started?)

Maybe the OP could clarify

 

[RichA]

Very cynical!!

Yep. Tongue in cheek, but cynical.
If the OP had said that the club chairman and a couple of independent committee members had discussed the matter with the witnesses and players concerned before making a decision I'd be less cynical, but he didn't.
It reads like it was a kangaroo court job.

 

[Skytot]

Maybe the OP could clarify

To clarify, the group were on the 9th hole sheltering under trees, under the watchful eyes of a pretty full clubhouse

 

[Skytot]

Yep. Tongue in cheek, but cynical.
If the OP had said that the club chairman and a couple of independent committee members had discussed the matter with the witnesses and players concerned before making a decision I'd be less cynical, but he didn't.
It reads like it was a kangaroo court job.

Maybe it does read like that , and maybe it was a kangaroo court , I don’t really know I was out on the course playing . But that’s information I got when I went for a beer after my round .

 

[bobmac]

To clarify, the group were on the 9th hole sheltering under trees, under the watchful eyes of a pretty full clubhouse

Thanks for the update.
Apologies, I was wrong

 

[Swango1980]

What would happen if the situation occurred in a professional game (as unlikely as it would be as they just wouldn't, and if they did they'd have a referee chasing them on)?

Last day of a Major, and it starts to rain pretty heavily. Play continues and most players struggle on. Caddies desperately trying to keep grips dry, brollies up, waterproofs on, etc. However, the last group decide to take shelter for 15 minutes under some trees, to keep dry during the worst part.

I suspect there would be no choice but to DQ those players? And if so, then the rule has been applied in the same way in this case.

A good point was made about whether all 3 players should be DQed? In other words, what if one player wished to continue, but the other 2 were pretty adamant they wanted to stay dry, and so refused to do so. In that case, could the Committee reverse the DQ of that single player, after finding out the facts afterwards?

 

[CountLippe]

What would happen if the situation occurred in a professional game (as unlikely as it would be as they just wouldn't, and if they did they'd have a referee chasing them on)?

Last day of a Major, and it starts to rain pretty heavily. Play continues and most players struggle on. Caddies desperately trying to keep grips dry, brollies up, waterproofs on, etc. However, the last group decide to take shelter for 15 minutes under some trees, to keep dry during the worst part.

I suspect there would be no choice but to DQ those players? And if so, then the rule has been applied in the same way in this case.

A good point was made about whether all 3 players should be DQed? In other words, what if one player wished to continue, but the other 2 were pretty adamant they wanted to stay dry, and so refused to do so. In that case, could the Committee reverse the DQ of that single player, after finding out the facts afterwards?

Would be interested in a ruling on this, especially as the last group out, the single player couldn't ask the group behind to split up.

 

[Colin L]

Well. it aint' going to happen in a Major! There would be a referee on to it in no time. But the question is interesting. The single player could carry on and catch up with and join the group in front, leaving the Committee with the decision whether to accept his score given that a few strokes had been played without an accompanying marker. Perhaps he should play a few strokes on the 9th till his next one would be out of sight of his marker and then stop, the point being that he is thus demonstrating that his reason for stopping play was the lack of a marker not the weather.

But would it happen even at club level? Would the other two not just grumble a bit and go along with the one who clearly knows the rules better? Or is that being naive?

 

[Swango1980]

Well. it aint' going to happen in a Major! There would be a referee on to it in no time. But the question is interesting. The single player could carry on and catch up with and join the group in front, leaving the Committee with the decision whether to accept his score given that a few strokes had been played without an accompanying marker. Perhaps he should play a few strokes on the 9th till his next one would be out of sight of his marker and then stop, the point being that he is thus demonstrating that his reason for stopping play was the lack of a marker not the weather.

But would it happen even at club level? Would the other two not just grumble a bit and go along with the one who clearly knows the rules better? Or is that being naive?

It depends on the players, it could work both ways. Even players who think they know the rules, may not be 100% confident on their interpretation. Some golfers may be aware that it is against the rules to unduly delay play, but they may not be as confident as to whether it is acceptable for 15 or so minutes due to heavy rain. Or, they may assume the Committee would be sympathetic of such a delay. Either way, there may be enough doubt to stop them from "pestering" the other 2 to move along, as they may feel they are coming across as unnecessarily pushy.

So, one player may say "we should continue, I don't think we can delay play". The other 2 may come up with a convincing argument that it is absolutely fine, they are not delaying anyone behind, we'll catch up with the group in front once we get going again, etc. I guess the first player may well then just have to accept they were pushed into a rule breach by the other 2, and maybe they could only better argue their case if they were 100% adamant that they needed to play on, and the other 2 simply refused.

 

[rulefan]

Post #4 seems to cover it well.
15 minutes is IMO pretty significant.

 

[Swango1980]

Post #4 seems to cover it well.
15 minutes is IMO pretty significant.

I didn't think Post 4 covered the situation where a player had no intention or desire to breach the rule, but had no choice as the only people capable of marking their score stopped play.

 

[rulefan]

I didn't think Post 4 covered the situation where a player had no intention or desire to breach the rule, but had no choice as the only people capable of marking their score stopped play.

Post 4 includes a reference to 5.6a.
5.6a(1) says:

5.6a/1 – Examples of Delays That Are Considered Reasonable or Unreasonable​

Unreasonable delays in the context of Rule 5.6a are delays caused by a player’s actions that are within the player’s control and affect other players or delay the competition. Brief delays that are a result of normal events that happen during a round or are outside the player’s control are generally treated as “reasonable”.

Determining which actions are reasonable or unreasonable depends on all the circumstances, including whether the player is waiting for other players in the group or the group ahead.

The Committee has discretion to make an appropriate ruling for each player. IMO it would have been reasonable for the player to have reported to the seemingly nearby clubhouse or continued without a marker. He should have demonstrated his willingness to play on.

 

[Swango1980]

Post 4 includes a reference to 5.6a.
5.6a(1) says:

5.6a/1 – Examples of Delays That Are Considered Reasonable or Unreasonable​

Unreasonable delays in the context of Rule 5.6a are delays caused by a player’s actions that are within the player’s control and affect other players or delay the competition. Brief delays that are a result of normal events that happen during a round or are outside the player’s control are generally treated as “reasonable”.

Determining which actions are reasonable or unreasonable depends on all the circumstances, including whether the player is waiting for other players in the group or the group ahead.

The Committee has discretion to make an appropriate ruling for each player. IMO it would have been reasonable for the player to have reported to the seemingly nearby clubhouse or continued without a marker. He should have demonstrated his willingness to play on.

Could they continue without a marker, bearing in mind Clarification 3.3b/1 states:

"The purpose of a marker is to certify that a player's score for each hole is correctly shown on the player's scorecard. If a marker is not with the player for the entire round, the scorecard cannot be properly certified.

For example, if a player plays several holes without their marker and the marker enters the player's scores for the holes the player played alone, the scorecard cannot be properly certified under Rule 3.3b.

The player should have insisted that the marker accompany the player for all of the holes. If the marker was unable to do so, the player should have asked another person to serve as their marker. If that was not possible, the player was required to stop play and report to the Committee so that another marker could be assigned."

In this case, the player seems justified in stopping play after all?

 

[wjemather]

What would happen if the situation occurred in a professional game (as unlikely as it would be as they just wouldn't, and if they did they'd have a referee chasing them on)?

Last day of a Major, and it starts to rain pretty heavily. Play continues and most players struggle on. Caddies desperately trying to keep grips dry, brollies up, waterproofs on, etc. However, the last group decide to take shelter for 15 minutes under some trees, to keep dry during the worst part.

I suspect there would be no choice but to DQ those players? And if so, then the rule has been applied in the same way in this case.

A good point was made about whether all 3 players should be DQed? In other words, what if one player wished to continue, but the other 2 were pretty adamant they wanted to stay dry, and so refused to do so. In that case, could the Committee reverse the DQ of that single player, after finding out the facts afterwards?

It happened on the PGA Tour a couple of years ago at the Palmetto Championship; at least one group stopped play for more than 5 minutes when it started raining and... nothing happened. At all.

 

[Swango1980]

It happened on the PGA Tour a couple of years ago at the Palmetto Championship; at least one group stopped play for more than 5 minutes when it started raining and... nothing happened. At all.

So, would this indicate that stopping play for a certain period of time, simply to take shelter from rain, could be considered an acceptable delay? Or was this a subjective decision made by Committee that others would be critical of? Or were there other circumstances that led to it being acceptable (such as clearing water of the greens, getting dressed into waterproofs, etc?)

 

[wjemather]

So, would this indicate that stopping play for a certain period of time, simply to take shelter from rain, could be considered an acceptable delay? Or was this a subjective decision made by Committee that others would be critical of? Or were there other circumstances that led to it being acceptable (such as clearing water of the greens, getting dressed into waterproofs, etc?)

Not at all.
As far as I know, nothing was even mentioned about it. And no, there was no reasonable excuse for delaying/stopping play; no flooding or imminent danger. Players donned waterproofs (which is reasonable) and then simply took shelter under umbrellas while the shower passed over (which is not reasonable) - except for JT Poston, whose caddy didn't bring either his umbrella or his waterproofs, so he just stood there getting wet.

The situation illustrates that officials on the PGA Tour are more concerned with pandering to the players than adhering to the rules when it comes to certain situations (usually slow play).